Regulating bodily integrity: cosmetic surgery and voluntary limb amputation.

Kennedy, A

Regulating bodily integrity: cosmetic surgery and voluntary limb amputation.

Kennedy, A

Permalink

Publisher:: THOMSON REUTERS AUSTRALIA LTD
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: J Law Med, 2012, 20, (2), pp. 350-362
Issue Date:: 2012-12

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	20_JLM_350.pdf	Published version	95.73 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Kennedy, A https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0334-6037
dc.date.accessioned	2024-03-07T23:43:54Z
dc.date.available	2024-03-07T23:43:54Z
dc.date.issued	2012-12
dc.identifier.citation	J Law Med, 2012, 20, (2), pp. 350-362
dc.identifier.issn	1320-159X
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/176322
dc.description.abstract	Cosmetic surgery and voluntary limb amputation share a number of features. Both procedures are patient-driven forms of body shaping that can only be performed by surgeons, and therefore the procedures require the imprimatur of the medical profession to be lawful. Both invoke identity construction as a central legitimating factor that renders the procedures therapeutic. The legal regulation of surgery is subsumed within general principles regulating medical practice, where autonomy and consent are constituted as fundamental authorising principles. The legitimacy of consent to surgical intervention operates unevenly in relation to these two forms of surgery. Amputation of healthy limbs is presumed to be non-therapeutic. Capacity is closely interrogated and minutely scrutinised. Consent to cosmetic surgery, by contrast, is presumed to be a valid expression of autonomy and self-determination.
dc.format	Print
dc.language	eng
dc.publisher	THOMSON REUTERS AUSTRALIA LTD
dc.relation.ispartof	J Law Med
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.subject	11 Medical and Health Sciences, 18 Law and Legal Studies, 22 Philosophy and Religious Studies
dc.subject.classification	4203 Health services and systems
dc.subject.classification	4804 Law in context
dc.subject.mesh	Amputation, Surgical
dc.subject.mesh	Body Dysmorphic Disorders
dc.subject.mesh	Body Image
dc.subject.mesh	Elective Surgical Procedures
dc.subject.mesh	Humans
dc.subject.mesh	Informed Consent
dc.subject.mesh	Patient Selection
dc.subject.mesh	Personal Autonomy
dc.subject.mesh	Plastic Surgery Procedures
dc.subject.mesh	Self Mutilation
dc.subject.mesh	Humans
dc.subject.mesh	Self Mutilation
dc.subject.mesh	Body Image
dc.subject.mesh	Personal Autonomy
dc.subject.mesh	Patient Selection
dc.subject.mesh	Informed Consent
dc.subject.mesh	Body Dysmorphic Disorders
dc.subject.mesh	Elective Surgical Procedures
dc.subject.mesh	Plastic Surgery Procedures
dc.subject.mesh	Amputation, Surgical
dc.subject.mesh	Amputation, Surgical
dc.subject.mesh	Body Dysmorphic Disorders
dc.subject.mesh	Body Image
dc.subject.mesh	Elective Surgical Procedures
dc.subject.mesh	Humans
dc.subject.mesh	Informed Consent
dc.subject.mesh	Patient Selection
dc.subject.mesh	Personal Autonomy
dc.subject.mesh	Plastic Surgery Procedures
dc.subject.mesh	Self Mutilation
dc.title	Regulating bodily integrity: cosmetic surgery and voluntary limb amputation.
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	20
utslib.location.activity	Australia
utslib.for	11 Medical and Health Sciences
utslib.for	18 Law and Legal Studies
utslib.for	22 Philosophy and Religious Studies
pubs.organisational-group	University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Law
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access	*
dc.date.updated	2024-03-07T23:43:53Z
pubs.issue	2
pubs.publication-status	Published
pubs.volume	20
utslib.citation.issue	2

Abstract:

Cosmetic surgery and voluntary limb amputation share a number of features. Both procedures are patient-driven forms of body shaping that can only be performed by surgeons, and therefore the procedures require the imprimatur of the medical profession to be lawful. Both invoke identity construction as a central legitimating factor that renders the procedures therapeutic. The legal regulation of surgery is subsumed within general principles regulating medical practice, where autonomy and consent are constituted as fundamental authorising principles. The legitimacy of consent to surgical intervention operates unevenly in relation to these two forms of surgery. Amputation of healthy limbs is presumed to be non-therapeutic. Capacity is closely interrogated and minutely scrutinised. Consent to cosmetic surgery, by contrast, is presumed to be a valid expression of autonomy and self-determination.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/176322